Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the hereditary trusteeship of the Ulthurai kattalai attached to the ancient Sri Tyagarajaswami temple at Tiruvarur, Tanjore District. The management of the kattalai was vested in two Mudaliar families, the Bava family and the Vadapathimangalam family, each holding the office of trustee by hereditary succession. Prior to 1943, the Bava family was represented by Vaithilinga Mudaliar and the Vadapathimangalam family by Thiagaraja Mudaliar. Upon Vaithilinga's death in 1943, a succession dispute arose within the Bava family. Gopalaswami Mudaliar, a divided brother of the deceased, claimed the trusteeship as the senior male member, asserting that according to family custom the office always vested in male members. He first applied under Section 42 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 for interim appointment, but the Religious Endowment Board dismissed that application, observing that the right to succession was disputed and that he should establish his right in a civil court. Gopalaswami then filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 117 of 1946) for declaration, but subsequently withdrew it and instead filed an application under Section 84 of the Act before the Board on April 11, 1946, seeking a declaration that he was the hereditary trustee in succession to Vaithilinga. The Board, overruling objections as to jurisdiction, decided in his favour in O.A. No. 279 of 1946. Thiagaraja Mudaliar challenged that order before the District Judge under Section 84(2). The District Judge, treating the question of jurisdiction as preliminary, held that the Board had no power to decide a dispute about succession to an admittedly hereditary trusteeship, and set aside the Board's order. The Board and Gopalaswami appealed to the High Court, which initially took a contrary view and remanded the matter for merits. After further proceedings and remands, the District Judge ultimately set aside the Board's order, holding that the daughter and daughter's son of Vaithilinga were entitled to the office. Gopalaswami's appeal to the High Court (Appeal No. 88 of 1958) was pending when he died; his legal representatives and the legal representatives of his brother Panchapakesa, who had transposed as co-appellant, were brought on record. The Supreme Court, in two appeals by special leave, considered the jurisdictional issue. It held that Section 84(1)(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, as amended, only empowered the Board to determine whether a trustee was a hereditary trustee as defined in the Act, not to adjudicate which member of a family should succeed to an admittedly hereditary office. The Court approved the decisions in Sastri Ammal v. Pravalavarna Naicker and A. Krishnaswami Raja v. Krishna Raja, and overruled Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Thyagaraja Mudaliar. Accordingly, the Board's order was without jurisdiction, and the District Judge's decision setting it aside was upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Hindu Religious Endowments - Jurisdiction of Religious Endowment Board - Scope of Section 84(1)(b) of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 - Dispute over succession to hereditary trusteeship not within Board's jurisdiction - Held that where the hereditary nature of the trusteeship is admitted, the Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act cannot adjudicate which member of the family should succeed to the office; such dispute must be resolved by civil court; approved Sastri Ammal v. Pravalavarna Naicker and A. Krishnaswami Raja v. Krishna Raja; overruled Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Thyagaraja Mudaliar (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a dispute as to who among a number of members of a family was entitled to succeed to an office, admittedly hereditary, fell within sub-clause (b) of Section 84(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, as amended by Act 10 of 1946.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Religious Endowment Board had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding succession to the hereditary trusteeship. It approved the decisions in Sastri Ammal v. Pravalavarna Naicker and A. Krishnaswami Raja v. Krishna Raja, and overruled Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Thyagaraja Mudaliar. The Board's order in O.A. No. 279 of 1946 was set aside, and the District Judge's decision was upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 84(1)(b) of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act
- 1926 only empowers Religious Endowment Board to decide whether a trustee is a hereditary trustee as defined
- not disputes about succession to hereditary office among family members
- such succession disputes must be resolved by civil court
- approved Sastri Ammal v. Pravalavarna Naicker and A. Krishnaswami Raja v. Krishna Raja
- overruled Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Thyagaraja Mudaliar
